915 N.W.2d 677
N.D.2018Background
- In 1964 Alice Rozan executed two mineral deeds conveying fractional interests to Gustave Goldstein (1/8) and William Murray (3/40); each deed also described specific fractional interests (e.g., 10/200, 1/2) in the legal descriptions.
- Through successive conveyances, portions of those interests passed to Pacific Oaks College and Children’s School and Devereux Foundation, which in 2011 granted oil and gas leases ultimately held by Gerrity Bakken, LLC.
- In 2013 Pacific Oaks and Devereux brought a quiet title action against the Altshule defendants and others; Gerrity Bakken and its predecessors in title were not named as parties. The district court in that action construed the deeds to grant the stated fractions of the whole property (i.e., not as fractions of a fraction) and entered judgment for defendants.
- Gerrity Bakken later filed a separate quiet title action (joining persons of record and unknown claimants) seeking a different interpretation: the granting-clause fraction should be reduced by the fractional interests appearing in the property descriptions (i.e., a fraction of a fraction).
- The district court granted summary judgment for Gerrity Bakken, adopting the fraction-of-a-fraction construction and quieting title in its favor; the Altshule defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to interpret the fractional interests in the 1964 deeds | Granting-clause fraction applies to the grantor’s fractional interest in each described parcel (fraction × fraction) | Granting-clause fraction applies to 100% of each described parcel (ignore subsequent fractional descriptions) | Court adopted fraction-of-a-fraction construction; deeds unambiguous and must give effect to all clauses |
| Whether the 2018 quiet title judgment impermissibly collaterally attacks the 2013 judgment | Gerrity Bakken was not party to 2013 action and acquired interests before that judgment; thus it may pursue quiet title now | Judgment should not supersede or undo prior quiet title judgment in favor of parties actually litigating in 2013 | Not a collateral attack; 2013 judgment did not bind Gerrity Bakken; new suit permissible and court may quiet title in favor of nonparties to prior action |
| Whether name/spelling discrepancies or gaps in chain defeat quieting title | Minor spelling differences (Devereux/Devereaux) and record findings establish identity and title chain | Argues missing instruments and name differences break chain of title | Spelling variance immaterial; district court’s finding that parties are the same is supported; title quieted in favor of Gerrity Bakken |
| Whether failure to join all persons of record in 2013 precludes new relief | Gerrity Bakken insists necessary parties were not joined in 2013, so relief remains available | Altshule contends prior action should control or parts should remain intact | Court notes quiet title judgments that omit persons of record are fragile; failure to join necessary parties in 2013 supports allowing the subsequent action; joinder remedies available but were not pursued in 2013 |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Brown, 110 P.2d 456 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941) (deed construed to convey percentage of grantor’s owned interest—i.e., fraction of a fraction)
- Hild v. Johnson, 723 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 2006) (specific land description controls when it conflicts with quantity expression)
- Averyt v. Grande, Inc., 717 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. 1986) (distinguishes when a reserved fraction applies to grantor’s owned interest vs. entire tract)
- Johnson v. Shield, 868 N.W.2d 368 (N.D. 2015) (deed interpretation principles; intent governs and ambiguity allows extrinsic evidence)
- Golden v. SM Energy Co., 826 N.W.2d 610 (N.D. 2013) (quiet title judgment does not bind persons with interests who were not made parties)